Carbon Storage Isn't "Unlimited": Hidden Risks in Net-Zero Plans

CCS and carbon removal are often treated as the "safety net" in net-zero roadmaps. The analysis discussed by Carbon Brief suggests that geological storage that can be considered truly safe and widely deployable may be much smaller than headline theoretical estimates. That gap matters for strategy, investment priorities, and how environmental claims are substantiated and audited.

The anchor figures to keep in mind

• Frequently cited theoretical global storage capacity: ~12,000 GtCO₂
• "Prudent / risk-filtered" safe capacity estimate: ~1,460 GtCO₂
• If that safe capacity were used entirely for CO₂ removal: up to ~0.7°C warming reduction; a more conservative reading highlights ~0.4°C.

Note: These figures illustrate the difference between "theoretical potential" and "deployable, low-risk capacity".

Why CCS/CDR should be treated as a scarce resource

CCS/CDR can be valuable, but if used as an "unlimited offset lever" it can drive cost/access risk, reputational risk, and compliance risk as documentation, verification and reporting expectations rise.

Pier Compliance lens: Risk → Evidence → Compliance

A net-zero statement is only as strong as the evidence chain behind it: Claim → Evidence (data quality, methodology, supplier validation, documentation) → Compliance (consistency, reporting readiness, product/supplier records). EU focus on substantiating "green claims" is moving toward verifiable, comparable statements. CBAM also strengthens discipline around emissions data and reporting (definitive regime from 2026). Treat CCS/CDR as strategic for residual emissions—while the core plan remains measurable reductions and robust data governance.

Quick Checklist (if 3+ apply, review)

• Our net-zero relies heavily on future CCS/CDR availability.
• Supplier data (emissions/product) is inconsistent or not verifiable.
• Marketing claims don't fully match technical documentation.
• CBAM-relevant inputs/products exist but 2026 readiness is unclear.
• "Sustainable" wording exists without a defined evidence standard.

Net-Zero Claim & Compliance Check (30 min)

We review your claim-to-evidence chain, identify CCS/CDR dependency risks, and outline practical compliance actions.

FAQ

Does this mean "CCS doesn't work"?

No. The message is: do not assume infinite capacity and deployability; treat CCS/CDR as a scarce resource.

What's the biggest risk for companies?

Building the critical path of a net-zero plan on future capacity; weak evidence and supplier data amplify claim risk.

What should we do now?

Strengthen measurable reductions and data governance first; position CCS/CDR strategically for residual emissions.

How does this relate to CBAM?

CBAM raises the bar for emissions data and reporting; the definitive regime starts from 2026.

How can Pier help?

We review the claim–evidence–documentation chain and propose a practical roadmap for supplier/product readiness and reporting.

---

Disclaimer: Informational content only; not legal advice.

Sources

• https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-role-of-carbon-storage-has-been-hugely-overestimated/
• https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy-topics/green-claims_en
• https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en